News Control of US ports: Bush selling out on US security?

[Moonbear]

This discussion, on the other hand, is narrowly focused on security risks due to port activity, specifically due to the acquisition of an operations contract by a UAE company that bought out the holder.

This discussion is not so narrowly focused. A lot of related issues have been brought up as well as the political implications of it (this is the politics forum), and a whole range of grays has been tossed in from various people's viewpoints of the acquisition.

 

[edward]

Against rising bipartisan oppositon, Bush is dead set on having this sale completed.

''They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto.''

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060218210909990001&cid=2194

 

[edward]

My question is why can't our ports be managed domestically? I can't find any information to explain this, and I seem to be the only one wondering about this. I guess I should just be relieved the contract isn't going to Halliburton.

Originally American ports were operated by a local authority. Then privitization came along. Many companies bought it, many companies merged, when the economy was bad many companies got out.

The operation of American ports has been in a constant flux in recent years. There are still some small companies managing smaller ports. CSX used to operate ports, but when they needed to raise money they sold out.

CSX even sold ports that they operated in Asia to this same UAE company.

I do find it odd that I can't google up any company names operating specific ports.

I guess if you want that info you have to buy it.
http://www.seaportsoftheamericas.com/

The info above comes from the American Association of Port Authorities. Oddly, on their website they don't even mention private companies running the operations.

 

[Moonbear]

Against rising bipartisan oppositon, Bush is dead set on having this sale completed.


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060218210909990001&cid=2194

Does it have enough support for Congress to override a veto?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, consider this. First, we have the 06 elections coming up and this will [is] certainly play[ing] very badly with most people. So just the perception of selling out is a political landmine for every Republican. Next, there is no way that the Republicans are going to assume the liability for this. If anything ever happened at one of these ports they would forever be held accountable. It would be political suicide. I don't see how Bush can win on this one.

The next question that comes to mind for me is why? Why would Bush take a stand against his own party [and the Democrats, now Governers, and probably most of the nation] on THIS issue?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One more point if no one has made it. Even though I think it is outrageous to allow any foreign entity to control a US port, to compare the UAE to Britain in terms of national security is completely inappropriate. We have a long standing and unique relationship with GB; one that spans a century. Any logic that seeks to equate the two simply as "friendly foreign nations" is a zeroth order approximation at best - a completely unrealistic stretch of the imagination.

 

[SOS2008]

Originally American ports were operated by a local authority. Then privitization came along. Many companies bought it, many companies merged, when the economy was bad many companies got out.

The operation of American ports has been in a constant flux in recent years. There are still some small companies managing smaller ports. CSX used to operate ports, but when they needed to raise money they sold out.

CSX even sold ports that they operated in Asia to this same UAE company.

I do find it odd that I can't google up any company names operating specific ports.

I guess if you want that info you have to buy it.
http://www.seaportsoftheamericas.com/

The info above comes from the American Association of Port Authorities. Oddly, on their website they don't even mention private companies running the operations.

Thank you, and Moonbear for information. I had found the AAPA link, which is as follows:

Founded in 1912, the American Association of Port Authorities is a trade association which represents more than 150 public port authorities in the United States, Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America. In addition, Association members include more than 300 sustaining and associate members -- firms and individuals with an interest in the seaports of the Western Hemisphere.

http://www.aapa-ports.org/

A list of some of those 150 public ports can be found here:

http://www.expandglobal.com/Resource_Pages/Port_authority.htm

But if the operation of a port is contracted out, it isn't indicated.

It sounds like managing operations of a port isn't a profitable enterprise. This is what I want to know. It may be we have no other choice at this time but to outsource to a foreign company that has global economy of scale--the UAE did come in with the low bid fair and square. Actually it would hurt the UAE if a terrorist attack was committed in relation to any port they manage, no?

But it is a sad commentary nonetheless that America is not an independent country on so many levels, many related to national security. Any country that increasingly imports instead of producing something itself (with exception of luxury goods) puts itself at risk in regard to basic needs. Outsourcing is just another form of importing. And foreign ownership should be limited in general.

I would prefer the debate among politicians to be less about election posturing and more about the substance of this issue, and that goes for our culpable media as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Again, this is not a matter of producing widgets. Being that it is a matter of national security we have every right to demand that this be managed domestically. If domestic management costs more, fine, we have spent hundreds of billions on the security of Iraq.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting:

Travel Advice
United Arab Emirates

United Arab Emirates overall This Advice is current for Wednesday, 22 February 2006.

Be alert to own security Exercise caution High degree of caution Reconsider your need to travel Do not travel

This advice has been reviewed and reissued. It contains new information on Local Laws. The overall level of the advice has not changed.

Summary
We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack.

We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates. Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets.

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/United_Arab_Emirates

I'm not sure of the implications here but it was in the press. It seems that the UAE has been considered unsafe for westerners by the Au Government for some time.

 

[SOS2008]

Again, this is not a matter of producing widgets. Being that it is a matter of national security we have every right to demand that this be managed domestically. If domestic management costs more, fine, we have spent hundreds of billions on the security of Iraq.

There may be more to the issue than meets the eye, but don't get me wrong. Though I prefer government to be as limited as possible, my personal belief is that areas of national security, which includes basic needs according to Maslow, should be protected (as in protectionism), and either nationalized, subsidized, or highly regulated. And as stated earlier, I believe we should take great care in regard to foreign ownership/control of American assets. The rest should be fair trade, not free trade except perhaps in regard to luxury items. I believe it costs less in the long run, and makes America safer to boot.

People may consider this isolationist or worse. This is my position in view of history, terms of trade, etc. and methods the U.S. has used to take advantage of other countries in the past, in particular the third world. We are now unwittingly allowing other countries to treat us in the same way. How can we be an empire if we can't even control the area within our own borders (this goes for border control as well)? We are behaving like a third-world country at every turn. This isn't about racism...maybe not even terrorism. In my mind it's worse than that.

(Okay, that's my late night diatribe...)

 

[Skyhunter]

P&O contributed the funds to expand Port Newark http://www.pnct.net/, so those new aquisition may have that benefit of bringing in funds to other ports that desperately need expansion.

Though, it seems DP World had some help greasing the wheels for their takeover:

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

http://dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

That's right off DP World's website.

Their home page is here: http://dpiterminals.com/dpworld_main.asp
It's not terribly useful for learning anything though...you can tell it was a bunch of business types who wrote it...it's heavy on buzzwords and light on substance.

I guess that explains why George is willing to veto his first piece of legislation over this.

In response to a question, Bush said he would veto any legislation enacted to block the deal.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=auP6XjMk11cM&refer=home

Here is a copy of the http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdffrom Congress.

 

[russ_watters]

Show us some imagination then, edward - just saying we're wrong is not an argument.

Bingo, Russ, and to this point in the thread that is all you have done.

Three problems with that, Integral:

1. You are implying an equivalent responsibility where none exists. It is incumbent upon the originator of the thread to provide a complete argument to be debated in order to be a starting point for the debate(failing to get that, I took up the question with someone who supports the OP's assertion). Ivan provided no initial argument whatsoever (just a question in the title that we must assume has an affirmative answer in his opinion). Heck, he didn't even state his opinion explicitly.

2. Often in such arguments, the "con" side is simply the assertion of the negative (ie: my assertion that nothing of substance will change). Such positions are, by their nature, rebuttal-only. They require a concise point from the OP to rebut.

3. That very first post of mine contains a clear and concise argument that you ignored.

There are simple and obvious flaws in what was presented on the first page and lyn and I both pointed them out.

The point is, it is not necessary for a entire staff change to present a danger. It is only necessary that some 2nd or 3rd level manager do a "favor" for family or friends. That is how easy it would be for terrorist to get into the system on BOTH ends of the shipment. It is not necessary for an entire ship be waylayed, the CG does not board every vessel and check every container, it simply can't. The danger could be contained in a few cubic feet of unused space in a container. It is the last person to close the container and the first to open it which define the danger.

I think you overstate the danger - it takes more than one person to unload a ship and the containers themselves are not typically opened at the port.

Regardless, I at least understand why you are saying there is a potential danger in having a foreign (Mid-Eastern, in this case) company running the operations. However, I don't think it is ethical to assume that the the company is going to be a risk any more than it is ethical to assume that an Arab-American owning a business in the US would pose a risk. That is just the sort of fear-based decision making that scares people about the Patriot Act and the wiretapping.

Unless a real (as opposed to potential/hypothetical) threat exists, we cannot act as if a real threat exists.

The fundamental issue here is that we must be able to guarantee the security of every container from point of origin to destination. Will this change, change anything? Perhaps not, but do we need to change how we handle the containers to ensure the safety of our nation and our citizens.

We need to be proactive in preventing terrorist from using shipment containers from importing WMD. To deny the possibility of this is short sighted and down right foolish. Remember, nobody purposely flew and airliner into a building until 911.

Well, that is beyond the scope of the specific issue in the OP of this thread, but I agree with you that shipping, in general, is an real threat. Inspection of every container is probably the right thing to do regardless of this corporate sale.

 

[edward]

The middle eastern counties are in constant turmoil. Even If the UAE DPworld, can manage a safe and secure operation NOW, can that be guaranteed in the future? Sure they are currently supposedly an ally, but then both Iraq and Iran were our allies in the past.

I see from a link posted by Moonbear, that a former company executive of DP WORLD, Is now a Bush appointee in the very area of transportation that we are talking about. My my isn't that special.

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

This whole thing is starting to smell very strange.

 

[BobG]

I think using religion as a basis for a decision about who can operate a port is illegal in the United States. Brings up an interesting question about which of our civil liberties is worth sacrificing in the interest of safety - freedom of religion or freedom from unreasonable, unwarranted searches.

In any event, I don't see how foreign ownership of a US port is that much different than foreign ownership in other companies (such as rubber companies, automobile companies, airlines, etc.). In fact, some industries encourage foreign investment - they need the extra cash to pay their pension obligations: Airline Ownership and Control: Good for Consumers, Airlines, and the United States[/url]

I probably shouldn't stir up the pot like that.

 

[edward]

I think using religion as a basis for a decision about who can operate a port is illegal in the United States. Brings up an interesting question about which of our civil liberties is worth sacrificing in the interest of safety - freedom of religion or freedom from unreasonable, unwarranted searches.

This isn't really about religion BOB. It is more about where the radical part of that religion is located. When it comes to security nothing is illegal. If a Baptist minister allowed terrorist to plan and raise funds in his church, NSA would be all over the place like flies on a three day old corpse. The UAE allowed something similar to happen in their country, but on a much grander scale.

Should they now be rewared because that have claimed to be reformed?

These guys could be total athiests, but with their track record and with what is going on in the Middle east, the entire picture changes. For that matter they are also a state owned company. P&O is a very large company, 6.8 billion worth of large. They could spin off the 6 American owned ports from the deal.

 

[loseyourname]

This isn't really about religion BOB. It is more about where the radical part of that religion is located. When it comes to security nothing is illegal. If a Baptist minister allowed terrorist to plan and raise funds in his church, NSA would be all over the place like flies on a three day old corpse. The UAE allowed something similar to happen in their country, but on a much grander scale.

Do you still not see how this is guilt by association, though? What has this company or anyone affiliated with it ever done? You're indicting them based on nothing other than the location of their base of operations. If someone in a position of large responsibility within the company has a history of ties to terrorism or money laundering or any of these other things that have taken place at one time or another in the UAE, then I'll go so far as to say that this person should be fired for the deal to go through. If he represented a company-wide trend, then I'll even agree that we should block the deal outright. Is there any history of irregularities or problems at the ports this company already owns? It's not like they have no track record for us to look into.

 

[BobG]

The plus side of the United Arab Emirates:

The UAE has an open economy with a high per capita income and a sizable annual trade surplus. Its wealth is based on oil and gas output (about 30% of GDP), and the fortunes of the economy fluctuate with the prices of those commodities. Since the discovery of oil in the UAE more than 30 years ago, the UAE has undergone a profound transformation from an impoverished region of small desert principalities to a modern state with a high standard of living. At present levels of production, oil and gas reserves should last for more than 100 years. The government has increased spending on job creation and infrastructure expansion and is opening up its utilities to greater private sector involvement. Higher oil revenue, strong liquidity, and cheap credit in 2005 led to a surge in asset prices (shares and real estate) and consumer inflation. Any sharp correction to the UAE's equity markets could damage investor and consumer sentiment and affect bank asset quality. In April 2004, the UAE signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Washington and in November 2004 agreed to undertake negotiations toward a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US.

The negative side is that it is a union of non-Democratic Emirates and:

the UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering; anti-money-laundering controls improving

Source: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html

I agree with loseyourname. The bottom line is the particular company's history, not that some terrorists have come from the UAE. The westernization of culture (and the resulting abandonment of traditional values) in the UAE is one reason fundamentalists from the UAE have joined terrorist organizations.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It sounds like managing operations of a port isn't a profitable enterprise. This is what I want to know. It may be we have no other choice at this time but to outsource to a foreign company that has global economy of scale--the UAE did come in with the low bid fair and square. Actually it would hurt the UAE if a terrorist attack was committed in relation to any port they manage, no?

I've been trying to look up information on Port Operators and what exactly they are in charge of without a whole lot of luck. Searches mainly turn up articles on this story.
As for the Port Authority, that is not what DP World is going to be running. A Port Authority is the governing committee in charge of all ports in an area which includes things such as airports and ferrys.
A wiki article on the Port Authority of NY and NJ so far has the best description of what they do and is one of the area where DP World will have operations. It says that they even have their own police division specifically for the ports they oversee. I'm not sure how much of the operations a port operator takes over, I'm trying to look into that.
As for why we would allow a company from another country to run operations in our ports I think that has been rather common for some time and not just here. I think it makes it cheaper and easier for their shipping companies. If you just take a look at airports (Again these are under our port authorities) there are plenty of airline companies operating there that are based in other countries. Again I'm not sure how this works with sea ports. I'm trying to figure out what shipping interests DP World has outside of port operations.

 

[edward]

Do you still not see how this is guilt by association, though? What has this company or anyone affiliated with it ever done?

Previous to this incident "guilty by association" has been enough for the CIA to clamp down hard on a country. In national security issues "guilt by association" has to be preaumed to be true. If the UAE has never done or allowed anything to happen that affected this country, then why all of the secrecy? This deal was strarted in November, and the congess just now hears of it...whats going on with that.

We don't know what this company or anyone and everyone associated with it has done. That is one of the big sticking points.

You guys do realize that a lot of money is swapping hands here and not just between DPWorld and P&O? The price of P&O stock doubled in December. And the price rise in the stock was attributed to a lot more than this being just the natural rise due to a sale. The opposing bidder in Singapore was buying and jacking up the price.

Link on previous page:

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

According to the Sept. 11 commission, (commonly recognized as the definitive investigation into the 2001 attacks), the United Arab Emirates served as a conduit for funds, logistical hub and transit point for al Qaeda operatives involved in the plot.

It revealed that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Emirati nationals: Fayez Banihammad and Marwan al-Shehhi. According to the Sept. 11 commission, at least nine of the 19 hijackers passed through Dubai on their way to the United States and received assistance from al Qaeda operatives based in the emirate.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said Dubai, a member of the United Arab Emirates, was the headquarters of the nuclear black market run by disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network supplied centrifuge technology to countries including Libya and North Korea.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/02/con06072.html

DP World is in Dubai. That is where the D comes from. And we should assume that no one associated with this very large shipping company knew anything of the above incidents? Give me a break.


When I start putting together the pieces of this situation, I see a lot that is going on that indicates we aren't being told the whole story.

 

[edward]

WASHINGTON – President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060222-1410-portssecurity.html

WHAT, the guy has been talking about this as if he had been right on top of it all along. Rove is in full spin cycle again.

DPW was formed by a September 2005 merger of Dubai Port Authority and Dubai Port International. DPW is 100 percent owned by the government of the Emirate of Dubai via a Dubai government holding company called the PCFC (Ports, Customs, and Free Zone Corporation). The government holding company is headed by the ruler of Dubai, Shiek Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who took over on Jan. 4, 2006, following the death of his father, Sheikh Maktoum.

Ok OK So State owned DPWorld (the company) has a year and a half of experience under its belt and is ready to take on the big Apple.

 

[Cyrus]

DP World is in Dubai. That is where the D comes from. And we should assume that no one associated with this very large shipping company knew anything of the above incidents? Give me a break.

You do know that Dubai is not a country, right? Dubai is part of the United Arab Emeriates. Its not some backwards 3rd world country like afganistan Edward.

http://www.am.joneslanglasalle.com/NEWS/2002/11nov/Dubai.jpg

Many consider it to be one of the nicest and most modern places in the Middle East.

Tell me Edward, do you mean to tell me a our shipping companies are in cahoots with drug traffickers? I think you owe use the break, not the other way around. We KNOW drugs are being trafficked at our ports, does that mean we can stop it? Knowing something does not mean you are willfully doing it. You need to distinguish the two.

Previous to this incident "guilty by association" has been enough for the CIA to clamp down hard on a country. In national security issues "guilt by association" has to be preaumed to be true.

As John Mc Laughling says, WRONG! The US government in fact does not hold this view, only you do. So you are making a false argument. And please don't point to your 9-11 reports, because in it they said it happened in the UAE, it did not say the UAE were knowingly helping terrorists. It's one of the largest places of transporting goods in the Middle East, how do you NOT expect something bad to go through there? Why don't you put some facts forth that implicates the UAE government if you want to continue this false argument of yours.

Near the start of this thread I told you:

Ok, let me give you my opinion on this issue:

There is more that goes on with the nations of the Middle East than you realize. Your statement, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relations between the United States and the Islamic countries. First, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two of our biggest allies in the Middle East when it comes to counter-terrorism intelligence.

and you replied (with my name in all caps )

CYRUS
I am well aware of whom our allies are. But it was not until 2005 that UAE ceased to recognize the Taliban as an authority. They also use the petrodollar instead of the euro dollar. So do the Saudi's, and we really need for them to do that. But I could never say that in an unstable middle east that antything is guaranteed.

But the more you post, the less I think you actually do. The US government is itself calling the UAE our ally, and yet you continue to call them the enemy. At this point, you really need to start backing up your claims or just stop making them.

 

[edward]

You do know that Dubai is not a country, right? Dubai is part of the United Arab Emeriates. Its not some backwards 3rd world country like afganistan Edward.

Of course I know this, and I did not refer to it as as being a country, please read again.
I only stated that the "company" in question is located in Dubai, and did so in relevance to:

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said Dubai, a member of the United Arab Emirates, was the headquarters of the nuclear black market run by disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network supplied centrifuge technology to countries including Libya and North Korea.

Tell me Edward, do you mean to tell me a our shipping companies are in kahoots with drug traffickers? I think you owe use the break, not the other way around. We KNOW drugs are being trafficked at our ports, does that mean we can stop it? Knowing something does not mean you are willfully doing it. Distinguish the two.

Someone else posted the "Drug" issue.

As John Mc Laughling says, WRONG! The US government in fact does not hold this view, only you do. So you are making a false argument. And please don't point to your 9-11 reports, because in it they said it happened in the UAE, it did not say the UAE were knowingly helping terrorists.

No, it was just that for a period of time they did not co-operate on shutting down terrorists activites and funding as they were warned to do in 1999. Had they done so... who knows. There is a link to that back yonder somewhere.

 

[SOS2008]

The middle eastern counties are in constant turmoil. Even If the UAE DPworld, can manage a safe and secure operation NOW, can that be guaranteed in the future? Sure they are currently supposedly an ally, but then both Iraq and Iran were our allies in the past.

Exactly:

Endless conflicts of interest abound when it comes to foreign dependence in order for the U.S. to maintain its infrastructure, electrical grid, military weaponry and supplies, air travel and homeland security, to name a few. When smaller U.S. specialty industries vital to the industrial base become extinct on our shores, they now appear huge in a world where alliances are tenuous at best. A global economy at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, security and standard of living is something that the Colonists would not have stood for. They would have found another way. Maybe America still has time to do the same.

- http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11650.shtml

In any event, I don't see how foreign ownership of a US port is that much different than foreign ownership in other companies (such as rubber companies, automobile companies, airlines, etc.). In fact, some industries encourage foreign investment - they need the extra cash to pay their pension obligations: Airline Ownership and Control: Good for Consumers, Airlines, and the United States[/url]

The article goes on to say:

The industrial base and manufacturing for the U.S. military were necessarily intertwined. But following the end of the Cold War there has been a deliberate decomposition of U.S. industry, unprecedented in American history. There are a number of factors which have contributed to U.S. dependence on foreign trade, primarily with India and China, which has not only led to millions of U.S. manufacturing and engineering jobs permanently lost, but paints a grim picture for the long term stability of the U.S. military supply line.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11650.shtml

So it could be chemicals, ball-bearings, and so forth that are important for national security. Not just maintaining control of something more obviously strategic, such as our seaports.

But you are right about the need and therefore desire for foreign investment. When tax breaks are implemented (to shift funds to the wealthy, Wall Street, etc.), and "...Not one but two wars were prosecuted (one clearly necessary, the 2nd, less so). On top of several national emergencies that ratcheted up spending (9/11, Katrina), we have seen runaway ordinary spending from the Federal government. One party rule -- no matter which party -- causes profligate wasting of OPM, and the present group of spendthrifts are no different. Surprisingly, the President has never vetoed a spending bill." - http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/10/subsidizing_us_.html, foreign money is necessary.

As per sources via links provided above by various members, U.S. seaports are in dire need of modernization, including the Port Newark:

Over the past four years, a significant capital investment has been allocated by P&O Ports and A.P. Moeller-Maersk (formerly Royal P&O Nedlloyd) for the redevelopment of the existing Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) in Port Newark, New Jersey.

- http://www.pnct.net/

So we're making deals with communist states and states associated with terrorism. I won't go into trends of foreign ownership of U.S. assets overall (e.g., Canada owns a great deal), only to say that it has skyrocketed in recent years, with Treasuries now above 50% for example. There is debate on how good or bad foreign investment may be in the long run. IMO, it may not be bad financially, but it is all bad (outsourcing, importing, etc.) in view of national security.

 

[Cyrus]

No, it was just that for a period of time they did not co-operate on shutting down terrorists activites and funding as they were warned to do in 1999.

Prove it. Tell me exactly what were the known terrorist activities going on in the UAE that could have been stopped. If you are going to say trafficking cargo, tell me exactly how they are supposed to stop it? It is the same reason we can't stop all the trafficking that goes on at our own ports. Too high a volume makes it impossible to check 100% or even 10% of all items. If you want to say money, then tell me exactly whose bank accounts were they instructed to freeze at the time?

Your own quote even says, 'for a short period of time.' Which shows that once they realized the extent of the problem they took a proactive stance. Since you are putting the UAE in an unfair light, I am going to hold you to what you say from now on. Start providing solid evidence to back up what you have to say. Tell me things that could have actually been done to stop 9-11, not theoretical hand waiving.

 

[edward]

Prove it. Tell me exactly what were the known terrorist activities going on in the UAE that could have been stopped. If you are going to say trafficking cargo, tell me exactly how they are supposed to stop it? It is the same reason we can't stop all the trafficking that goes on at our own ports. Too high a volume makes it impossible to check 100% or even 10% of all items. If you want to say money, then tell me exactly whose bank accounts were they instructed to freeze at the time?

I am not about to go scrambling for that link again. Oh well here it is, it is in the link in post 58 and it is in the 911 commission report. I have given an other link to illegal cargo that was shipped in and out of Dubai. I have to take a long shot and say that it would have involved DP before the mereger. (the merger was only last year. Sept 05.0

Your own quote even says, 'for a short period of time.' Which shows that once they realized the extent of the problem they took a proactive stance. Since you are putting the UAE in an unfair light, I am going to hold you to what you say from now on. Start providing solid evidence to back up what you have to say.

It was a short periond relatively speaking from 1999 when they were warned, to 2003-4 when they actually begain to take it seriously.

What does this have to do with a company that has only been in existence for less than two years, and is a merger of what was both wrong and right in the past. Ten years ago we would have sent these guys to the back door to make deliveries. Tell me what wonderful chages have taken place that make them capable of doing the job?

 

[Cyrus]

I am not about to go scrambling for that link again.

Then I will take that to mean you can't PROVE any of your false accusations.

What does this have to do with a company that has only been in existence for less than two years, and is a merger of what was both wrong and right in the past.

For a company that is now the 10th largest port in the world in under 2 years means they know something you don't, how to run a port very sucessfully.

Ten years ago we would have sent these guys to the back door to make deliveries. Tell me what wonderful chages have taken place that make them capable of doing the job?

One cornerstone project, which underlines DPI’s position as a major player in Asia, is the development of Busan Newport, South Korea. DPI has a 25% interest in and management contract for this 9-berth facility, which will have a capacity of 5.5 million TEU. It is currently under construction and is expected to be operational by 2006.

Their track record of being sucessful in only 2 years. Let's not make them out to be stupid idiots Edward, they know what they are doing despite what you may think. They are not loading up supercontainer ships with rickshaws.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The bottom line is the particular company's history, not that some terrorists have come from the UAE.

Since the UAE owns and controls Dubai, they both matter. The company cannot be considered in isolation.

 

[edward]

OK now let's get back to why, if this deal was so important, Bush didn't know anything about it until it was a done deal.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060222-1410-portssecurity.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Playing the racist card here is a cheap out. If there is any default bias at work, it is geographical and political, not a racial one.

Has anyone objected to Iranian Americans working at ports, or to a company run by an American of ME decent, running a port?

 

[Cyrus]

What does this have to do with a company that has only been in existence for less than two years, and is a merger of what was both wrong and right in the past. Ten years ago we would have sent these guys to the back door to make deliveries. Tell me what wonderful chages have taken place that make them capable of doing the job?

Ok OK So State owned DPWorld (the company) has a year and a half of experience under its belt and is ready to take on the big Apple.

Facilities:

UAE:

ASIA Pacific:

Australia - Adelaide;
China - ATL Yantian;
China - Shanghai Ji Fa;
China - Tianjin;
China - Yantai ;
China - Yantian;
Hong Kong - ACT ;
Hong Kong - ATL;
Hong Kong - CT3

Europe and West Africa:

Romania - Constanta;
Germany - Germersheim;

Latin America:

Dominican Republic - Puerto Caucedo;
Venezuela - Puerto Cabello

West Asia/East Africa:

Djibouti - Djibouti;
India - Cochin;
India - Visakhapatnam;
Saudi Arabia - Jeddah

So is NY and NJ so much harder to manage than all their other ports Edward? NY and NJ would be a small fraction of their problems.

...and you tell us to give you a break?? Why don't you start putting your information into context Edward. I think we have had enough silly comments about their abilities.

 

[edward]

Facilities:

UAE:

ASIA Pacific:

Australia - Adelaide;
China - ATL Yantian;
China - Shanghai Ji Fa;
China - Tianjin;China - Yantai ;
China - Yantian;
Hong Kong - ACT ;
Hong Kong - ATL;
Hong Kong - CT3

Europe and West Africa:

Romania - Constanta;
Germany - Germersheim;

Latin America:

Dominican Republic - Puerto Caucedo;
Venezuela - Puerto Cabello

West Asia/East Africa:

Djibouti - Djibouti;
India - Cochin;
India - Visakhapatnam;
Saudi Arabia - Jeddah

So is NY and NJ so much harder to manage than all their other ports Edward? NY and NJ would be a fraction of their problems.

...and you tell us to give you a break?? Why don't you start putting your information into context Edward.

I already posted a link to the Asian ports acuired by DP. It was just last year right after the mereger. What does this have to do with anything. A list of what they own has no connection to how they would run the Port of New York.

Don't tell me you are another one of those guys who needs to see dead bodies CYRUS
I held a secret security clearance for 10 years and a top secret clearance for another 20.

 

[edward]

Then I will take that to mean you can't PROVE any of your false accusations.

CYRUS
DO NOT INSINUATE THAT I AM POSTING FALSEHOODS There has been a link for everything I have posted.


GOT THAT!

If you are too lazy to read the 911 commission report link which I mentioned that does not make me wrong. If I am wrong then the 911 Commission report was wrong. Accuse them of lying! Once again the link is in post 58.

In addition I woud imagine that you are too young to remember when we had Bin laudin cornered in a camp in Afganistan in 1999. Why didn't we bomb it.? Because High level UAE officials were there.. How did we know that. We saw their freaking airplane sitting there on the ground.

February 10, as the United States considered striking the camp, Clarke reported that during his visit bin Zayid had vehemently denied rumors that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick, UBL update, Feb. 10, 1999. Subsequent reporting, however, suggested that high-level UAE officials had indeed been at the desert camp. CIA memo, "Recent High Level UAE Visits to Afghanistan," Feb. 19, 1999

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tone it down.

Now.

 

[McGyver]

Why the Race Card Doesn't Hold Water

You know, even if these senators are right, they sound awfully racist in now trying to block acquisition by foreign companies, considering the ports before were under the control of a British company and they didn't seem to care then.

Now that we've seen the Arab and Muslim spokespeople play the "race card," please allow me to retort.

The definition of Racism is discrimination of person(s), groups, or organizations solely based upon "dislike or disfavor" of those persons and/or groups. When civil rights legislation was passed in the U.S. in the 1960s, those that it served were not considered terrorists or threats to society by any sense of the imagination.

On the other hand, "many many" Arab states and their sponsored organizations have made repeated threats against the U.S. and its world-wide interests. To deny certain U.S. rights and privileges to those states and organizations is not racists - but rooted in national security.

If ordinary Americans must now submit to more strict strutiny in the interests of national security - certainly, that same scrutiny should apply to states and organizations with "suspicious ties" to terrorists networks.

We must not only guard against "threats coming into" the U.S. at our major ports, but also assure that sensitive materials, technology, and other resources "do not unlawfully leave" the U.S. via these same ports.

 

[Cyrus]

The United Arab Emirates, the financial center for the Gulf area, also had a reputation for
being “wide open,” with few regulations on the control of money and a woefully
inadequate anti-money-laundering program.32 The UAE system had been a concern of
U.S. policymakers long before the 9/11 attacks, and they directly raised their concerns
with UAE officials. The UAE had no money-laundering law, although at U.S. urging in
1999 it started drafting one, which was not finalized until after 9/11. Although the UAE
was aware that terrorists and other international criminals had laundered money through
the UAE, and that it was the center for hawala and courier operations, it did little to
address the problem. Additionally, the United States expressed its concern about UAE
support for Ariana Airlines and the movement of Bin Ladin funds through Dubai. Shortly
before the September 11 attacks, the departing U.S. ambassador to the UAE warned
senior officials in the Emirates that they needed to move forward on money-laundering
legislation, so as not to be placed on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) “blacklist”
of countries not fully complying with international standards in this area. These warnings
had no discernible effect.

Perhaps you are seeing something I am not Edward. Please show me where it says the United Arab Emirates was taking part? Just becuase the United States tells them they should fix their laws does not mean the UAE is obliged to say YES SIR RIGHT AWAY SIR!

I told you before show me some PROOF of your accusations. I already said simple hand waiving is not going to cut it. Show me explicity where the government of the UAE was at fault. Being slow to comply is not the same thing as funding terrorists. It even says they were slow to fix the money laundering problem but still moved ahead to fix it.

 

[edward]

Perhaps you are seeing something I am not Edward. Please show me where it says the United Arab Emirates was taking part? Just becuase the United States tells them they should fix their laws does not mean the UAE is obliged to say YES SIR RIGHT AWAY SIR!

I told you before show me some PROOF of your accusations. I already said simple hand waiving is not going to cut it. Show me explicity where the government of the UAE was at fault. Being slow to comply is not the same thing as funding terrorists. It even says they were slow to fix the money laundering problem but still moved ahead to fix it.

Don't push it CYRUS , I am seeing something that you are not because ", I have been there and done that in a security setting", and perhaps because you don't want to see.
The quote above referring to the 1999 UAE officials in A terrorist camp in Afganistan is proof enough. Are you reading or just writing.

 

[Cyrus]

Be fair Edward, you Edited your post AFTER I had posted in response to your first post. Until I see the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and the Department of State/Defense say that the UAE are supporting terrorists, I am not going to buy into your argument. THEY are the experts on these issus, NOT congressmen. If they say the UAE is a terrorist supporting state I will buy your argument. So obviously your argument about it being proof enough is not true.

 

[edward]

Be fair Edward, you Edited your post AFTER I had posted in response to your first post. Until I see the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and the Department of State/Defense say that the UAE are supporting terrorists, I am not going to buy into your argument. THEY are the experts on these issus, NOT congressmen. If they say the UAE is a terrorist supporting state I will buy your argument. So obviously your argument about it being proof enough is not true.

I don't think that I once mention that the UAE is currently supporting terrorists. I mentioned that their track record was not good.

UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1267, Oct. 15, 1999. UNSCR 1267 demanded that the Taliban render Bin Ladin to justice within 30 days; upon noncompliance, UN member states were called on to restrict takeoff and landing rights of Taliban-owned aircraft. The sanctions also required member states to freeze Taliban funds and financial resources. But Taliban "charter flights" continued to fly between Afghanistan and the UAE.

 

[rachmaninoff]

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
...
Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_53;_ylt=Ak9L1r3Rksmh4E5kvRfL3c4Tv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I picked up on that. Bush was backing this before he could even know what it was; according to what he says now.

Even if we assume only the best of intentions by all involved, there is a secondary issue of trust in competence. The Bush administration's ability to access the facts is known to be highly flawed. And now we are asked to trust them on this issue of port security [again, trust] which we already know are highly vulernable [our ports] and one of our greatest weaknesses in terms of national security - with only about 5% of all cargo being inspected.

And the Bush admin has already admitted that Congress should have been included on this, so they admit to yet another failure to manage critical issues.

 

[Gokul43201]

However, I don't think it is ethical to assume that the the company is going to be a risk any more than it is ethical to assume that an Arab-American owning a business in the US would pose a risk.

It looks like the administration itself considered the operational control of the ports by this specific company an increased risk, as evidenced by the requirement that DP mandatorily take part in security measures that are only voluntary for other companies.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily.

Source : http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060222-1410-portssecurity.html


Is it not unethical that the administration demand these additional measures of this company ?

 

[Moonbear]

And the Bush admin has already admitted that Congress should have been included on this, so they admit to yet another failure to manage critical issues.

I think my jaw hit the floor when I heard that. Yesterday, Bush was insisting all was fine, nothing to worry about, this is going to happen no matter what, it's a done deal, and he's going to veto any legislation attempting to do otherwise, and then I nearly got whiplash to hear him claiming he knew nothing about it until it was too late, and Congress should have been kept informed, and he should have been kept informed. Which story does he want us to buy? That he's backing this 100% and is completely confident that all necessary security issues have been addressed in these secret meetings, or that the meetings were so secret, even he wasn't told about them? He can't have it both ways. I think full disclosure needs to be made to Congress before the ink dries on this "done deal" and they should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether all assurances really have been made or not. One of the frustrations we're having in this thread is that nobody even seems able to tell the public just exactly what it is that they will be doing once they take over. This shouldn't be such a difficult question to get answered, but we really still don't have a clear idea. I've gotten some glimpses from jobs P&O was hiring for, and some vague mission statements on the P&O and DP World websites, but NONE of it gives a complete picture of what they will be doing. They're in charge of something, somewhere there is money to be made in this deal or nobody would take over that job. About all I can glean is that DP World is aggressively expanding, and they needed this takeover of P&O to gain the status and reputation of a leader in that industry. I think I linked to whatever site I saw that on last night. So, they need the U.S., but does the U.S. need them too? And if so, why? I'm willing to listen to an hour long, or longer, Presidential press conference if Bush will please explain it all to us, and bring along the folks from DP World who are visiting and the folks from this secret committee, so nobody gets to weasel out and say the person with the answers isn't there. I want them all in the same room and I want answers out of them. Why should we trust them when they have given us zero information about the deal and given us zero reasons for that trust?

 

[SOS2008]

Even if we assume only the best of intentions by all involved, there is a secondary issue of trust in competence. The Bush administration's ability to access the facts is known to be highly flawed. And now we are asked to trust them on this issue of port security [again, trust] which we already know are highly vulernable [our ports] and one of our greatest weaknesses in terms of national security - with only about 5% of all cargo being inspected.

And the Bush admin has already admitted that Congress should have been included on this, so they admit to yet another failure to manage critical issues.

You're hitting the nail on the head. It is about perception, which includes the track record. The weak link for Bush has been homeland security -- American's have known about security issues in regard to our ports, are concerned about the flood of illegals coming over the border, and of course have felt great dismay about the management of Katrina.

What is happening now is the "mob mentality" that used to be used by Bush to his favor, has now turned against him. Members of Congress currently are swamped with letters, email, and phone calls from their constituents. With the 2006 elections in the near future, this has become very damaging. Bush and the GOP are looking soft on security:

"Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party..."

[In] Rove's speech to the Republican National Committee...[he]conveniently said nothing about that pesky leak investigation. Rove noted that we face "a ruthless enemy" and "need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in."

"President Bush and the Republican Party do," Rove informed us. "Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

Rove went on: "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview, and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Oh, no, those Dems aren't unpatriotic, just security idiots.

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301261.html

Though I personally feel the fear of terrorism has blown this matter out of proportion, I feel no sympathy that Rove's dirty politics are back firing.

 

[edward]

I think my jaw hit the floor when I heard that. Yesterday, Bush was insisting all was fine, nothing to worry about, this is going to happen no matter what, it's a done deal, and he's going to veto any legislation attempting to do otherwise, and then I nearly got whiplash to hear him claiming he knew nothing about it until it was too late, and Congress should have been kept informed, and he should have been kept informed. Which story does he want us to buy? That he's backing this 100% and is completely confident that all necessary security issues have been addressed in these secret meetings, or that the meetings were so secret, even he wasn't told about them? He can't have it both ways. I think full disclosure needs to be made to Congress before the ink dries on this "done deal" and they should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether all assurances really have been made or not. One of the frustrations we're having in this thread is that nobody even seems able to tell the public just exactly what it is that they will be doing once they take over. This shouldn't be such a difficult question to get answered, but we really still don't have a clear idea. I've gotten some glimpses from jobs P&O was hiring for, and some vague mission statements on the P&O and DP World websites, but NONE of it gives a complete picture of what they will be doing. They're in charge of something, somewhere there is money to be made in this deal or nobody would take over that job. About all I can glean is that DP World is aggressively expanding, and they needed this takeover of P&O to gain the status and reputation of a leader in that industry. I think I linked to whatever site I saw that on last night. So, they need the U.S., but does the U.S. need them too? And if so, why? I'm willing to listen to an hour long, or longer, Presidential press conference if Bush will please explain it all to us, and bring along the folks from DP World who are visiting and the folks from this secret committee, so nobody gets to weasel out and say the person with the answers isn't there. I want them all in the same room and I want answers out of them. Why should we trust them when they have given us zero information about the deal and given us zero reasons for that trust?

I can't believe that Bush was left out of the loop here. Each day we seem to get a differen't version. Could someone possibly have been pulling something over on Bush? Did we ever decide where the very first revelation of this sale was published? I am thinking that it was a result of DP Worlds own press release announcing the acquisition.

And to think that everyone knew except Bush, that is just so totally bizzare. If Cheney's hunting accident had happened a week later we may have never found out about it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One more thing that about makes my head explode here. The logic put forth by the admin so far is this: This deal is critical to the UAE, and it is critical to the perception of us among Muslims, hence our national security, that we allow a foreign agency controlled by a government with a dubious track record on terror to control a US port. Note that the UAE was one of three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

How about if we run this around the block: We have a right to act in our own best interest. If after 911, and considering that we are allegedly AT WAR, the people in the UAE can't understand our concerns, then, frankly, I don't trust their motives.

 

[Moonbear]

I can't believe that Bush was left out of the loop here. Each day we seem to get a differen't version. Could someone possibly have been pulling something over on Bush? Did we ever decide where the very first revelation of this sale was published? I am thinking that it was a result of DP Worlds own press release announcing the acquisition.

I don't know, I'm wondering if that's why he was so defensive about the deal when the news first broke, trying to cover that he was pissed about being left out of the loop. How does the President get left out of the loop? The DP Worlds press release is the earliest news I can find of it, on Feb 13, though while that mentioned the acquisition of P&O, it doesn't really talk about what was included in the deal, so you'd have already had to know that P&O was the company already running port operations in the US to have caught on to that tidbit. I find it really hard to believe he appointed someone from DP World to a high level position back in January, yet didn't know anything about the goings-on with DP World, short of his newly appointed Maritime Administrator back-stabbing him, but aquisitions like this just don't happen overnight. It has had to be in negotiations for months, and even if he didn't know who was going to win the bids with P&O, someone had to know who the contenders were to start running background checks.

 

[Gokul43201]

Did we ever decide where the very first revelation of this sale was published? I am thinking that it was a result of DP Worlds own press release announcing the acquisition.

I'm not sure where it was first published, but I'd heard on the radio that the news of the deal come out as a result of a Miami company suing to block the transaction. Was this after DP's own announcement ?

 

[edward]

I don't know, I'm wondering if that's why he was so defensive about the deal when the news first broke, trying to cover that he was pissed about being left out of the loop. How does the President get left out of the loop? The DP Worlds press release is the earliest news I can find of it, on Feb 13, though while that mentioned the acquisition of P&O, it doesn't really talk about what was included in the deal, so you'd have already had to know that P&O was the company already running port operations in the US to have caught on to that tidbit. I find it really hard to believe he appointed someone from DP World to a high level position back in January, yet didn't know anything about the goings-on with DP World, short of his newly appointed Maritime Administrator back-stabbing him, but aquisitions like this just don't happen overnight. It has had to be in negotiations for months, and even if he didn't know who was going to win the bids with P&O, someone had to know who the contenders were to start running background checks.

And this is a first. It is the first time a state owned company has been allowed to get their foot in the door in the U.S.

 

[Cyrus]

Is there a law against that Edward? (Im not being a smartass I am curious)

 

[edward]

Is there a law against that Edward? (Im not being a smartass I am curious)

Obviously not. But it is still a first. China tried to get Unocal and then Maytag. Both times they were outbid by comapanies who suddenly acquired funds that they didn't have a month before. In essence state owned companies have been fought off by American Industry in the past.